Is Godspell supposed to be an anti-Gospel film?

Greetings.

Jewish date:  24 Tammuz 5770 (Parashath Maṭṭoth-Mas‘e).

Today’s holidays:  The Three Weeks (Judaism), Feast Day of Maria Goretti (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Arthur C. Clarke (Church of the SubGenius).

Worthy cause of the day:  “Tell the FCC to Protect the Open Internet - The Petition Site”.

Topic 1:  Godspell (1973).  I have already commented on this film twice before (see “2012, a senseless plot thread, and a lame Gospel film” and “Cardboard Jesus in Gospel films and profiling”).  Godspell is a variation on the Gospel According to Matthew set in 1970s New York City.  The bulk of this film is spent on humorous creative telling of Jesus’s parables by a clownish Jesus and nine disciples, interspersed with Episcopalian hymns set to new music.  If all one wants is entertainment, Godspell will do nicely.  Theologically it is worrying.  Jesus, as a figure in the New Testament, does not come out of nowhere.  His story is rooted in Judaism and the situation in late Second Temple Period Israel.  Godspell rips him free of most of his original context without attempting to root him 1970s New York City.  Thus Second Temple Period references (the Temple, Pharisees, Priests, Caesar, etc.) end up making no sense here.  Even Jesus himself makes no sense here; what point is there to a savior when there is no one who needs saving?  Jesus and his disciples seem to spend most of the movie in a fantasy world.  Once the disciples heed the call of John the Baptist, they suddenly find themselves in a version of New York suddenly barren of anyone other than themselves, John the Baptist, and Jesus, and they remain isolated from other people until after the Crucifixion.  Even the Pharisee which Jesus argues with is a fantasy, a large puppet which eventually falls apart.  There is no Satan to tempt Jesus (oddly happening close to the Crucifixion rather than near the start of the film), so the disciples have to fill in for him.  There are no real Priests and Pharisees to deliver Jesus over to.  Even though two police cars show up, no police—possibly the equivalent of Roman soldiers—ever emerge, and it is left up to John the Baptist to double as Judas Iscariot(!) and crucify Jesus on a fence.  If the people behind Godspell were trying to give the impression  that they believe Jesus and his followers took part in a shared delusion they did an excellent job.

Topic 2:  For today’s religious humor, submitted by Barry: “The Gayspel According to . . .”:

Somehow this does not seem to be what the Gospels mean, but it is still an interesting interpretation.

Peace.

Aaron

Cardboard Jesus in Gospel films and profiling

Greetings.

Jewish date:  13 Ṭeveth 5770 (Parashath Wayḥi).

Today’s holiday:  Sixth day in the Octave of Christmas (Roman Catholicism)

Topic 1:  Last night I watched yet another Gospel movie, Color of the Cross.  This is the worst of the bunch I have seen so far, being based on the blatantly wrong premise that Jesus was black and that the color of his skin contributed to his (alleged) persecution.  Racism is not a concept in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, and forcing it into the story only made a poorly researched script even worse.  But watching this cinematic disaster, I realized something about the Gospel movies I have seen so far (The Passion of the Christ, Godspell, Jesus Christ Superstar, The Judas Project, Jesus, and Color of the Cross):  Jesus in the movies is dull.  Cinematic Jesus so far has shown little depth or real emotion.  While the Gospels cast Jesus as perfect, the movies make him an overly serene cardboard character who is easily beaten up.  The real Jesus had a following, and for that one needs personality and charisma.  The Gospels depict him arguing with his opponents, cursing those who do not agree with him, and thinking in terms of “us versus them”.  Jesus even curses a fig tree, of all things.  Godspell gets colorful with Jesus’s parables, but none of these movies produces the feeling that he is someone that real people would follow.  Pay attention, filmmakers:

Topic 2:  “Of Bombs and Underpants”.  This article by Rav Harry Maryles deals with a controversy that has been discussed on and off in the United States since at least 2001:  profiling people for security.  Muslims hate it, and many people think it smacks of prejudice.  Tough.  The fact is that terrorists, especially terrorists interested in attacking Americans, are disproportionately Muslim.  Yes, most Muslims are not terrorists.  But if one is looking for terrorists and has only finite time and resources, it is most efficient to scrutinize people who are more likely to be terrorists than treat everyone equally.  Is this fair?  Maybe not.  But Islam is at war with the West, and it would be stupid not to fight back.

Topic 3:  Recent reports on anti-Semitism in the media:  “"Huge Settlement" = Huge Mess”, “Israel Killing "Activists" Not Terrorists”, and “Israelis "Playing Mini-Mengele"”.  Plenty of evil word games.

Topic 4:  For today’s religious humor, something appropriate to my complaining about Gospel films, courtesy of Barry:  “Nothing’s A Hundred Percent”.


Peace.

Aaron

2012, a senseless plot thread, and a lame Gospel film

Greetings.

Jewish date:  25 Marḥeshwan 5770 (Parashath Ḥayye-Sarah).

Today’s holidays:  Birth of Baha’u’llah (Bahá’í Faith), Saint Day of Josaphat (Roman Catholicism).

Note:  One month until Ḥanukkah.  Time to start reading up on the relevant laws.

Worthy causes of the day:  “Restore Coastal Louisiana - The Petition Site”, “End Gender Discrimination in Health Insurance Coverage - The Petition Site”, and “Big Insurance Kills”.

Topic 1:  “2012: The End Of The World?”  I am not the only out there analyzing bad religious ideas.  This chart gives a nice summation of the purported disaster on December 21, 2012, both what the believers and skeptics claim.

Image via Wikipedia

Topic 2:  Chapters 24-25 of The Amber Spyglass (His Dark Materials, Book 3) by Philip Pullman.  Pullman leaves Lyra and Will in the land of the dead and tells us about the further adventures of Mrs. Coulter instead.  Mrs. Coulter has decided to play Lord Asriel and the Magisterium off each other and be in favor with whoever wins in the end.  Having stolen an intention craft from Lord Asriel, she proceeds to the Consistorial Court in Geneva, where she is promptly taken into custody.  (She ran off with Lyra at the end of The Subtle Knife, not liking the idea of her daughter being killed.  The Magisterium is therefore collectively unhappy with her.)  This episode quickly goes downhill, with Mrs. Coulter suggesting to the President of the Consistorial Court that the Authority has gone senile and that it may be merciful for Will to use the subtle knife to euthanize him.  (Obvious bad idea.)  This plot thread goes further downhill with the President via proxy stealing some of Lyra’s hair from a locket Mrs. Coulter wears around her neck.  Through use of a process which demonstrates that Pullman fundamentally misunderstands the nature of quantum entanglement, the President hopes to use Lyra’s hair to make Lyra explode.  This gives Mrs. Coulter an opportunity to play the hero and the Magisterium an opportunity to look evil.  Needless to say, Mrs. Coulter is successful in stopping this evil scheme, as there are still 13 chapters to go, and she ends up in Lord Asriel’s hands again at the end.  Theology grade for these chapters:  F.  Physics rating for these chapters:  F.  Plot rating for these chapters:  F, as the scheme is unbelievable and could easily be removed without affecting the rest of the story.  Probability that Pullman will redeem himself before the end of the trilogy:  trivially small.

Topic 3:  Seeing that I have started working on the New Testament in the original Greek, I decided it was appropriate to start watching this pile of Gospel-based films I have accumulated.  As such, last night I watched Godspell, which puts the action in New York City during the 1970s.  On the bright side, the cast does a lot of creative dramatization of the parables and teachings of Jesus, interspersed with songs.  On the down side, there is no serious attempt at understanding anything Jesus had to say or making any of the action actually make sense in 1970s New York.  For almost all of the film, Jesus and his disciples wander around the city, without encountering anyone else, doing their dramatization and singing.  There is a Last Supper at the end, with Jesus making the proper Jewish blessings over maṣṣah and wine(!), but that ends with a whimper with the crucifixion being the arrival of police cars—but no police—and Jesus and the disciples putting themselves up against a chain-link fence.  The film ends with the disciples carrying off the body of Jesus, without any explanation why he is dead (or unresponsive) or a resurrection.  That’s it.  Next to no plot.  Things are further confused by having John the Baptist and Judas Iscariot being the same person and having no motive whatsoever for betraying Jesus.  In short, this film is so lame that it makes Jesus Christ Superstar look good by comparison.

Peace.

Aaron